Senator Graham and the CRPD

There are substantial conversations occurring among Republicans on text of a resolution on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I hope Senator Graham of South Carolina is participating. Why? Because he has a track record for joining with other Senators of both parties to resolve big, complicated problems in a reasonable way. Furthermore, he has a long history with Senator McCain from Arizona, who strongly supports ratification of the CRPD. And finally, Senator Graham respects the power and strength of our Constitution and is a strong advocate for us being a credible player on the international stage.

He won the Republican primary on June 10, 2014 easily over his challengers, receiving more than 50 percent of the votes. His sister, for whom he took responsibility when their parents died when she was 13, has said that her brother has always been there for her. South Carolina voters tend to feel the same way, as do those who serve in the military. Senator Graham is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserves and probably is among the top three Senators in ranking who have made multiple trips to Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a Senate leader on bipartisan immigration reform.

He has a record for figuring out how to “tread the needle”, while remaining true to fundamental principles. He has been characterized as an effective strategist and tactician. Well, if that is so, we could use his help now. His primary is behind him. He is a friend of Senator McCain. He’s not afraid to work with Democrats. He is an independent thinker. He is a problem solver. We must ratify the CRPD now. If there is an impasse, Republican supporters of the CRPD (Senators Ayotte, Kirk, McCain, Collins, Murkowski, and Barrasso) have nothing to lose by reaching out to Senator Graham. In addition, people from South Carolina, especially those currently or formerly in military service, could simultaneously approach Senator Graham, and ask him to join his Republican colleagues who support ratification of the CRPD. There is not a moment to waste. His support for ratification would bring more supporters to our side.

Here is Senator Graham’s contact information:

Washington, D.C.: 202.224.5972

Greenville: 864.250.1417

Columbia: (803) 933-0112

Florence: (843) 669-1505

Mt. Pleasant: (843) 849-3887

Rock Hill: (803) 366-2828

Pendleton: (864) 646-4090

Website:  www.graham.senate.gov

Facebook: www.facebook.com/USSenatorLindseyGraham

Twitter: @LindseyGrahamSC

New Kindle book --  A Moral Imperative:  U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Book link: http://t.co/Vigyant7aM

If you are interested in supporting the ratification of the disability rights treaty, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, also check out:

www.disabilitytreaty.org

Facebook: www.facebook.com/RatifyCRPD

Blog: www.wecandothisifwetry.blogspot.com

Twitter: @AuntPip

CRPD: We Don't Need a Cliff Hanger, We Need Action Now

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee must mark up a resolution on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) on July 16th and the full Senate must vote on the resolution before the end of July.

Those who support ratification of the CRPD have worked hard, long, and made every possible case for ratification over the last two years. They have been patient. They have respected and taken direction from senators and staff. They anticipated that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would mark up the resolution on July 16th. According to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee website the CRPD resolution is not on the agenda for that date.

The current situation is beyond credulous. The Supreme Court resolved the sovereignty question in Bond vs. United States. Those who oppose the CRPD realize that if they can delay things through the month of July that, in all probability, any Senate action on a CRPD resolution is dead in 2014. And if the media pundits are accurate, there's the possibility that the Democrats may lose control of the Senate in the next election, November 2014. If that were to occur then, in all likelihood, there would be no action on the CRPD for a very long, long time. Senator Harkin is the only senator who seems to fully appreciate these stark assessments.

It's time to move. It's time to show courage. Whatever the state of negotiations are, I say to senators, STOP. Have a committee mark up. The votes are there. Have a floor vote. If there are amendments to the CRPD resolution, deal with them one at a time in PUBLIC. Enough of the "behind the scenes" stuff. The strategy in effect now is PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE OPPOSITION.

It's time to be honest. It's time to call the fence-sitters to account. There is no reason to wait unless we want to embrace failure. I don't. You don't. Tell the Senate to act.

Thank you.

Pat Morrissey

New Kindle book --  A Moral Imperative:  U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Book link: http://t.co/Vigyant7aM

If you are interested in supporting the ratification of the disability rights treaty, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, also check out:
www.disabilitytreaty.org
Facebook: www.facebook.com/RatifyCRPD
Blog: www.wecandothisifwetry.blogspot.com
Twitter: @AuntPip

A Moral Imperative: U.S.Ratification of the Connection on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

As of July 2014 over 145 countries that belong to the United Nations have ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a disability rights treaty. The U.S. has not. The book, A Moral Imperative: U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is a collection of blog posts written here between August 2013 and June 2014 on why the U.S. should ratify the disability rights treaty. It is anticipated that the Senate, which has sole responsibility for ratification of international treaties, will vote on ratification of the disability rights treaty in July 2014.

Using multiple arguments and easy to understand facts the book makes the case for ratification. The book provides background on the treaty and the role people with disabilities played in its drafting. It outlines in plain English the major points of difference between those who support and those who oppose ratification, and urges, and sometimes suggests how, they could find common ground.

It profiles Senators who could help reach the 67 votes needed for ratification. In December 2012, the first attempt for a vote in favor of ratification, lost by a very narrow margin.

The book also includes posts about contemporaneous events that influenced the debate on, momentum for passage of, and specific actions associated with the treaty. It contains many user-friendly talking points and suggests actions people may elect to take to promote ratification.

This book is an invaluable crash course on the treaty for anyone who wants to help promote ratification by the Senate of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Please read this book and be part of the push to make the world more welcoming, inclusive, and accessible to people with disabilities.

It may be purchased exclusively from Amazon as a Kindle ebook. I will share 50 percent of all royalties in 2014 with the U.S. International Council on Disabilities

Here's the link if you would like to buy the book.


Thank you.
Patricia Morrissey

This CRPD and Federalism

The momentum is picking up in favor of ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The Bond decision, rendered by the Supreme Court on June 2, 2014, said that the Federal government should not have pursued a prosecution that, under the Constitution, should have been left to the state (Pennsylvania). Now important voices are speaking publicly about the importance of a speedy ratification of the CRPD  -- Senator Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Harkin, Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senators Dole, Kirk, McCain, Barrasso, and Ayotte, the Business Leadership Network, and the U.S. International Council on Disabilities among others.

The Federal government used implementing legislation for an international treaty on chemical weapons to bring the prosecution of a woman who tried to poison her husband's lover. Opponents of the CRPD are concerned that, if ratified, the CRPD would expand the power of the Federal government to areas which, under the Constitution, are under the jurisdiction of states. The Supreme Court decision in the Bond case cleared the air. The relationship between the Federal government and states with regard to, which has power over what, remains unchanged. The Senate resolution to advise and consent on the CRPD needs to include a reservation that reaffirms this point.

We have two possibilities on the "public table". One is in the resolution to advise and consent on the CRPD that failed to pass in the Senate by five votes on December 4, 2012.

Here's the text --

This Convention shall be implemented by the Federal Government of the United States of America to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the obligations of the United States of America under the Convention are limited to the Federal Government’s taking measures appropriate to the Federal system, which may include enforcement action against state and local actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or other Federal laws, with the ultimate objective of fully implementing the Convention.

The phrasing that is troubling to some in this reservation is -- "the obligations of the United States of America under the Convention are limited to the Federal Government’s taking measures appropriate to the Federal system". People, who object, think it is a vague and open-ended phrase, not specific or strong enough to reaffirm and be consistent with the relevant provisions in the Constitution.

Curtis Bradley, a legal scholar from Duke University, in his testimony given to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on November 21, 2013 suggested different text for a reservation on federalism (i.e. the relationship between the federal and state governments as spelled out in the Constitution).

Here's the text --

The Federal government has substantial authority to regulate issues relating to the rights of persons with disabilities, and it has exercised this authority in connection with a number of important statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Federal government’s authority is not unlimited, however, and some matters that relate to the Convention would typically be addressed by state and local law. The United States expects that the combination of existing Federal law and state and local laws will be sufficient to meet or exceed the obligations of the United States under the Convention as ratified by the United States. Because the United States does not intend to alter the existing scope of Federal authority, it is not assuming obligations under this Convention that would exceed the constitutional authority that the Federal government would have in the absence of the Convention, notwithstanding Article 4(5) of the Convention. Furthermore, nothing in the Convention shall be considered as conferring on the Congress of the United States the authority to enact legislation that would fall outside of the authority that it would otherwise have in the absence of the Convention, or as limiting the powers of the several states of the Federal Union with respect to any matters recognized under the United States Constitution as being within the reserved powers of the several states.

So the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has these two known options and probably others with which to work. If the Committee can achieve consensus on a reservation on federalism, I believe other concerns will be quickly resolved.

Please urge the Committee to get to work and have a vote soon, so we can have a vote on the Senate floor quickly. Wouldn't it be nice if the Committee could finish its work by July 4th, Independence Day?

Thank you.

Common Grounder        

The CRPD, the Final Leg of the Journey

 As I predicted last night, this morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case, Bond versus the United States. Common sense as well as judicial caution prevailed. The Justices all agreed that the Federal government had no business using a statute enacted to implement a chemical weapons ban treaty to prosecute and convict a woman who poisoned her husband's lover. Amen to that. Justices also wisely elected not do any creative rearranging of our federalism system as outlined in the Constitution.

Everyone who supports the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), including Senators Harkin and Menendez, are ready to proceed to markup and a Senate floor vote. Hallelujah.

The way the Justices acted has removed one of the major arguments of the opposition for not ratifying the CRPD. The opposition contended that CRPD ratification, and I suspect ratification of  any treaty, would undo the balance of power between the state and federal governments. The ruling in the Bond case reflected unequivocally this is not going to happen under the Roberts' court. John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He is a relatively young person.

Being the optimist that I am, I hope that some Senators, especially those who have objected to the ratification of the CRPD on sovereignty grounds, will now sit down and talk to Senator Menendez and help develop a bipartisan resolution to get the CRPD passed by a wide margin.

Perhaps finally we can get a tally on where each Senator stands on the CRPD. Who has language to put in a resolution to address their concerns? Who wants to wait and see a final draft? Who will never support a resolution on a treaty regardless of what is in the text. We need six more Senators to support treaty ratification to get a CRPD resolution passed. The magic number is 67 votes . I think we can get more than the six we need to hit 67.

Here's what we each need to do.

Contact our Senators and  ask where they stand, and report what we learn back to Eileen Dombrowski at USICD.
Encourage our friends family, and colleagues to do the same.
Encourage veterans to contact their Senators as well.
Encourage business people to contact their Senators too.

We know the drill. The end is in sight. Now let's get ratification done.

Thank you.
Common Grounder

The CRPD and Bond vs. the United States

Any day now we should hear about the Supreme Court's decision in the Bond case. The case involved a woman who tried to poison her husband's lover. You would think that a case like that would be left to the state in which it transpired, but it was not. The U.S. government became involved using implementing legislation enacted to fulfill and describe how we would comply with an international chemical weapons treaty. Huh? What's this pending decision have to do with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)?

Everyone is on pins and needles and full of suspense. Because -- the court decision in this case could change or leave unchanged how the Supreme Court views U.S. sovereignty as spelled out in the Constitution. In the Constitution sovereignty deals with which powers are held by the federal government and which powers are held by the states. If the Supreme Court rules that the federal government took enforcement action under the law related to the international chemical weapons treaty on unconstitutional grounds, it would be saying that state law can't be undone or ignored in the name of an international treaty. Or, if it rules the other way, it would be saying that the federal government can intervene and take action under a law passed related to an international treaty, basically trumping state law.

With regard to the CRPD, no new laws are required so I can't see how a Supreme Court decision in the Bond case would apply to it. However, those in opposition to CRPD ratification have been trying to link it to the pending Bond decision. Since opponents to the CRPD see it as something all powerful -- that will undo the division of power between the federal and state governments; make the federal government the final authority on all things related to disability rights; and make the words in the CRPD the basis for all legal interpretations -- they are waiting and hoping for a decision that will let them say, "We told you so." With that, they think they will be able to kill any chance of ratification of the CRPD. They think all Senators sitting on the sidelines would agree with anti-CRPD forces.

We could get the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday, June 2nd.

Thank you.
Common Grounder

CALLING ALL SUPPORTERS OF THE CRPD, SENATORS THAT IS

I am approaching a ripe old age, not to be disclosed here. I had the opportunity during my career to work in both the House of Representatives and the Senate when there was much bipartisan cooperation with regard to the development of U.S. disability policy. I would like to see that degree of bipartisanship resurface, at least momentarily, so the Senate ratifies the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

I think the Senate Democrats, Independents, and the six Republicans, who support ratification, are in a unique position to help secure the votes we need. We need 67. By my count we need six more votes.

Each Senator, who supports the CRPD, knows at least one senator who opposes it, I am sure. Each of the former could reach out to one of the latter and ask him what his position is on the treaty. Once they know, they could share the information with Senator Menendez, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This information is a key component of the process to reach ratification.

As I have mentioned in other CRPD posts, senators who have not yet taken a position on the treaty probably fall into one of three camps: 1) those who oppose any UN treaty;  2) those who have specific, often single issue concerns, and want to participate in drafting text on these concerns; and 3) those waiting to see the text of a draft resolution on the CRPD before taking a position.

With such a tally Senator Menendez and his bipartisan partners, who are helping him draft a resolution, would be able to target specific senators and get their input and know which senators are willing to wait to see the final draft.

Hopefully, Senator Corker, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will not be opposed if drafting of a resolution on the CRPD is restarted. Perhaps we should not deluge his office with contacts anymore. That may be something he will appreciate.

The six Republicans who support the CRPD are:  Ayotte (New Hampshire), Barrasso (Wyoming), Collins (Maine), Kirk (Illinois), McCain (Arizona), and Murkowski (Alaska). So I know they will help the Chairman. Senators Barrasso, and McCain are on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

I suggest everyone contact your Senators regardless of party affiliation.Those Senators who support the treaty should be asked to reach out to someone they know who does not and talk to them about the treaty. At a minimum, they should try to find out how the senator feels about the CRPD, and then report that to Chairman Menendez and the Republicans who are helping him draft a resolution on the CRPD. This should be done as soon as possible. It will be worth it.

Thank you.
Common Grounder